City of Sacramento v. Fowle
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Circuit Court for the District of California; the case being thus: The city of Sacramento having been incorporated March 26th, 1851,* was reineorporated by act of April 25th, 1863.† The act enacts as follows: “§ 2. The.city of Sacramento shall be governed by a board of trustees consisting of three members. “ § 3. The officers of the city of Sacramento shall be a' first, second, and third trustee, who shall constitute a board of trustees.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court for the District of California; the case being thus: The city of Sacramento having been incorporated March 26th, 1851,* was reineorporated by act of April 25th, 1863.† The act enacts as follows: “§ 2. The.city of Sacramento shall be governed by a board of trustees consisting of three members. “ § 3. The officers of the city of Sacramento shall be a' first, second, and third trustee, who shall constitute a board of trustees. “§4. The board of trustees shall be designated as follows: The first trustee shall be president of the board of trustees and general executive…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Davis
That the summons was served in conformity with the California Process Act we think quite clear.
If the president of the board of trustees, is not the “head of the corporation,” it is difficult to see who is, for no other executive or head officer is named in the charter. Indeed, it would seem that a service upon any officer of less grade would not be a compliance with the statute. The legislature doubtless intended, in pursuance of a wise public policy, to guard the city from the consequences which have sometimes followed legislation permitting suits to be prosecuted against municipal…
2Cited by11 opinions
- City of Watertown v. RobinsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- Birmingham Cement Manufacturing Co. v. Gates Iron WorksCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1896
- Archer v. Imperial Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1913
- A. S. Kratz Co. v. Double Envelope Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1923
- Boykin, Carmer & Co. v. Baker & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland · 1881
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.